Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Banning ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. N19L-07-016 MAA
)
v. )
)
SARITA M. BANNING and )
WILLIAM C. BANNING, JR., )
)
Defendants. )
Date Submitted: August 16, 2022
Date Decided: September 7, 2022
ORDER
This 7th day of September, 2022, upon consideration of Defendants Sarita M.
Banning and William C. Banning, Jr.’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Stay of Writ of
Possession Pending Appeal (the “Motion to Stay”), the Response of the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, an Officer of the United States (“VA”) to the Defendants’ Motion
for Stay of Writ of Possession Pending Appeal, the entire record in this case and
Delaware statutory and case law, it appears that:
1. On August 10, 2022, Defendants filed their Motion to Stay, objecting
to the Court-ordered foreclosure of their property at 406 Virginia Drive,
Middletown, DE (the “Property”), the subsequent sheriff’s sale of the Property on
January 11, 2022, and the Writ of Possession dated August 8, 2022.
1
BACKGROUND
2. The New Castle County Sheriff sold the Property at sheriff’s sale on
January 11, 2022.1 The sheriff’s sale was confirmed pursuant to Superior Court
Civil Rule 69(d) on February 25, 2022.2
3. The Sheriff subsequently deeded the Property to the VA.3 The
Defendants, however, remained in the Property. Therefore, the VA filed the Petition
for Rule and Writ of Possession on May 19, 2022 (“the Petition”).4 In the Petition,
the VA requested: (1) that a writ of possession may issue and be awarded to the VA;
and (2) that a rule be granted unto the Defendants to show cause why said writ should
not be granted. On June 29, 2022, the Court set a hearing on the Petition for Writ of
Possession for August 8, 2022.5
4. Instead of responding to the Petition for Writ of Possession, Defendants
filed a “Notice to Cease and Desist.”6 The Notice to Cease and Desist was directed
not to the Court, but instead to the Federal Trade Commission. Several other non-
responsive exhibits were also filed.
1
Transaction ID 67340101.
2
A sheriff’s sale “so confirmed in its character and effect, and cannot
afterwards be inquired into, nor can its validity be controverted collaterally.”
Deibler v. Atlantic Properties Group, Inc., 652 A.2d 553, 556 (Del. 1995) (quoting
Victor B. Wooley, 2 Practice In Civil Actions in Delaware 768 (1906)).
3
Transaction ID 67434424.
4
Transaction ID 67638931.
5
Transaction ID 67776727.
6
Transaction ID 67780466.
2
5. On August 8, 2022, during the hearing on the VA’s Petition,
Defendants refused to come forward to speak, and instead insisted on speaking from
the gallery. The Court permitted Defendants to proceed in this unusual way. After
the Court issued its ruling granting the Order for Rule Absolute ordering a Writ of
Possession, however, Defendants became disruptive and refused to leave without
assistance of the Court bailiff. The Defendants eventually did leave the Courtroom
on their own.
ANALYSIS
6. Superior Court Civil Rule 62 governs motions to stay judgements
pending appeal. A four-pronged analysis must be implemented when determining
whether a motion to stay should be granted.7 The Court should:
a. Make a preliminary assessment of the likelihood of success on the
merits of the appeal;
b. Assess whether the petitioner will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is
not granted;
c. Assess whether any other interested party will suffer substantial harm
if the stay is granted; and
7
Travelers Bank & Trust, FSB v. Hayford, 2007 WL 3105753, at *1 (Del.
Super. July 10, 2007) (citing Kirpat, Inc. v. Del. Alcoholic Beverage Control
Comm’n, 741 A.2d 356 (Del. 1998). The Court also notes that there is no evidence
that the Defendants offered a supersedeas bond or other security as required.
3
d. Determine whether the public interest will be harmed if the stay is
granted.8
7. As to the first prong, likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal,
the Court finds that it is highly unlikely Defendants will be successful on an appeal.
The Motion to Stay is, in essence, an untimely objection to the Sheriff’s Sale.
Objections to a foreclosure after the confirmation of a sheriff’s sale are time barred,
“unless the court finds a lack of notice or other basis to relieve the party of the
consequences of the unexcused delay.”9
8. The Court finds no merit in Defendants’ objections. Defendants do not
claim lack of notice and there is no other evidence of excusable delay or any other
recognized defense. The Sheriff’s Sale was confirmed, and the Rule Absolute and
Writ of Possession were issued. Any argument regarding the validity of the Sheriff’s
Sale and foreclosure will not be considered at this time.
9. Most of the Motion to Stay focuses on what the Defendants believe is
their mistreatment during the August 8 hearing and the Court’s refusal to accept
paperwork that did not comply with the Court’s procedures prior to the August 8
hearing. The Court notes for the record that the purported filings were not responsive
to Petition and did not add any other detail as to why the Court should accept any of
8
Id.9
Deibler, 652 A.2d at 556 (citation omitted).
4
the Defendants’ defenses.10 The Court also provided Defendants with an
opportunity to speak prior to its ruling on the Petition. The Court finds no merit in
any arguments presented by the Defendants and therefore the Defendants have not
established a likelihood of success on the merits.
10. The Court also notes that today, the Supreme Court of Delaware, in its
decision on Defendants’ Notice of Appeal and Request for Emergency Injunctive
Relief, held that the Defendants have not established a likelihood of success on the
merits.11 The Supreme Court also held that the Defendants have not established that
they will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted.12
11. As to the third and fourth prongs, the Defendants have presented no
evidence that Defendants or the public will suffer substantial harm if the stay is not
granted.
10
See Transaction ID 67908970. While Defendants attempt to argue that the
Court rejected the filings because of Defendants’ self-represented status, this is not
so. The Could will not accept filings, whether filed by counsel or a self-represented
litigant, for numerous reasons as evidenced by the Court’s form entitled “Notice of
Non-Conforming Documents.” Transaction ID 67908970. Defendants were treated,
and have been treated, the same as any other self-represented litigant or counsel that
appears in this Court.
11
Banning v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, No. 315, 2022 (ORDER) (Sept. 7, 2022).
Transaction ID 68054560.
12
Id.5
12. Based on the foregoing, all requests for relief by the Defendants are
denied. The lockout scheduled for September 8, 2022 at 10 a.m. shall proceed as
scheduled. IT IS SO ORDERED.
6